About your Search

20130201
20130201
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)
does this leave him? assume that he gets confirmed, he has to be a tough -- a tough guy at the pentagon. he is going to be tough with congress. he has to deal with the potential of the sequester, fighting for the budget that he does get, dealing with all of the problems that come at you when you are in charge of the pentagon and the generals and the other members of the joint chiefs are going to feel they can run over him. >> we'll see about that. i assume that every general with any number of stars was watching intently yesterday, and might have had that thought in mind. you said another important word, which is sequester. it's going to be a huge mess over there trying to, first, anticipate this, and then deal with whatever the new reality is. i do think that it was ugly yesterday. it was ugly on both sides. the white house wasn't so much from what i heard defending his performance as saying that those mean republicans also performed in an ugly and bad and not very attractive way. i don't think anybody looked particularly good in that showdown. i also think it's very clear that this is
. it is for these reasons that i believe he is the wrong person to lead the pentagon at this perilous and consequential time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator inhofe. we have two former chairmen of this committee with us to introduce senator hagel. no senator has had two dearer friends or better mentor is i have hadtors than with senators nunn and warner. i want to welcome them back to this committee. i don't have to tell them that they are among dear, dear friends. it is a real treat to welcome you back to the committee. i will call on you, senator nunn, first. i will call you alphabetically. i have no better way to do it. sam? [laughter] sam, welcome back. >> first, for the record, seniority and age are two different things. senator levin, ranking member inhofe, i am honored to join my friend john warner in presenting chuck hagel to the committee and recommending that chuck be confirmed as our secretary of defense. i think it is worth noting that 68 years ago this month, john warner and listed in the u.s. -- enlisted in the u.s. navy to fight in world war ii. that was the start of
. yorktown, appomattox, the pentagon where 9/11 occurred -- there is a ceremony tonight i will be commissioned in -- there is a commission in april. we care very deeply about these events. one in nine virginians birth to death is a veteran. when you add in the guard and reserve and contractors, now you are probably talking about one in three of us. we care very deeply about all that is within dod. let me be plain, the threat that virginians and others are talking about now more than ever is the inability of congress to find a way forward on a reasonable budget compromise. that is what is in the newspapers and the headlines. at the direction of the deputy director, dod is planning for future cuts. i am very worried at the macro level about dod's ability to pursue and execute appropriate national security objectives in this time of congressional inability to find a budget compromise. the current cr limits flexibility, for example, of the military to appropriately taylor resources, we have no flexibility to deal with a shortfall. and to me, it seems like funding the military
, practiced at the pentagon. he had been working on this. >> so jill, is it a surprise that hagel seemed unprepared, or is it a surprise that republicans were going at him so hard? >> none of this should have been a surprise, thomas. i mean, they knew that the republicans were not happy with them. and the democrats, i think it's too strong to say they support him. they're going to hold their nose, perhaps, and vote for him, because the president wants him. but no one is really for him. so all of these things were expected. and he should have been prepped and ready to answer every single one of these things. he should have been prepared for "i want yes or no." he should have been prepared for iran and containment. i mean, even his correction was incorrect. >> and chip, let me talk to you, because our nbc's first read has out that hostile gop questioning might have made democrats even more you wanted, or so the white house hopes and believes. and this is what perry was referring to earlier about roy blunt appearing on "the daily rundown" . take a look. >> a majority in the senate should be
's the complement of non -- of folks from the state department that we send? the relationship between the pentagon and the state department seems to have changed as well. how will he weigh in on that? >> yeah, those are good questions. i think if i could just take two examples. with syria and also with afghanistan, you have questions of where the united states has to figure out some next policy steps that are pretty big and get to the question you raise, the balance between troops possibly, between diplomatic advisers, development experts, cia operatives, and where policy in the case of afghanistan has to make some changes, but it's generally on a predetermined course but it's going to have to vary quite a bit because we're drawing down troops now. in syria i think what we have is a policy for all the good intentions hasn't really worked. and if i were secretary kerry, i would probably commission my best people to do a two to four-week study on fundamentally new options in syria. where i think the united states has to recognize that what it's been doing so far hasn't been adequate and yet the coun
've seen two budget-related announcements coming out of the pentagon. one, i was looking up just now because i was trying to remember the numbers, and that is that the pentagon is beefing up its cybersecurity force, taking it from 900 to 4,000 and putting a few billion dollars into it. the other one that is apparently being beefed up in these times of budgetary constraints are the special forces. tom, would you just talk about that generally and then, fred, if you would talk about that not just in afghanistan, but in the broader battle and the nature of it, and then we'll come over to publish shah and the non-- membership shah and the nonexistent challenge that faces us in asia. [laughter] >> i'll try to be brief, dani. look, these new capabilities, you know, cyber operations or whatever you want to call them are certainly necessary and needed, and our ability to exploit, you know, the electromagnetic spectrum configured as the internet is, you know, pretty critical. but it's not qualitatively different from other forms of intelligence gathering or, you know, attempts to either by pr
reasons, the pentagon and the planners have made their own case to the president. and with the new resource problem we confronted in mali, look what it took to support french against al qaeda sub contractors. if we can't do that when in fact americans are held hostage and killed, what kind of response do you really expect for . >> is that a consequence of the u.s. not getting involved in mali earlier? >> what is the implication from that we in effect need to be involved -- . >> the u.s. has been concerned about mali for at least eight nows. -- months only now there's a discussion about where we should do more. >> look, in the time of the great extra cater. we are -- that -- what is threaten, our foreign policy is not manic interventionism right now. that's not what we have to worry about here. >> let's move on. if you have a question, raise your hand. i'm going ask you to identify yourself. keep your question short. let's go to [inaudible] of radio-- and then go to the woman right here in the black and hand the microphone to her. >> hi, my name is -- [inaudible] that syria is part
and commented on the pentagon lifting of the ban on women in the front lines of combat. one of the speakers was the first female pilot to fly in combat. here's a little of what she had to say. >> sitting in a squatter officer school, i was getting ready to go to fighter training, i just completed the triathlon, a bunch of injured 3, special forces, i take to their -- kicked their butts, and you had guys saying, "women don't have the endurance to do, admissions." you want to go outside and talk about this? [laughter] let's go for a run. the difficulty and the reason -- and seeing it even in the debates that are going on even though the train has left the station, a lot of people who are against this thing get away with you have been excluded from doing this, you have not done it, i have done it, therefore you cannot do it. i don't know if you have seen the nuances on tv lately. sure, you have been in combat and engaged with the enemy anbut that is the different from sustained operations. that is the language you are hearing, on fox, and it might. [laughter] -- fox, anyway. [laughter] justin
of the partnership that the state department has forms with the pentagon first with bob gates and then mike mullen and then leon panetta and marty dempsey. by the same token america's traditional allies and friends in europe and east asia remains a valuable partners on nearly everything we do and we have spent considerable energy strengthening those bonds over the past four years. and i would be quick to add the u.n., the imf and the world bank and nato are also still essential. but all of our institutions and our relationships need to be modernized, and complemented by new institutions, relationships and partnerships that are tailored for new challenges and modeled to the needs of a variable landscape. like how we elevated the g20 during the financial crisis or created the climate and clean air coalition out of the state department to fight short-lived pollutants like black carbon or work with partners like turkey, where the two listed up the first global counterterrorism form. we are also working more than ever with invigorated regional organizations. consider the african union in somalia and th
. i am very proud of the partnership that the state department has formed with the pentagon versus we on panetta and marty dempsey. by the same token americans traditional allies or friends in europe and east asia remain a valuable partner on nearly everything we do. we have spent considerable energy strengthening those bonds over the past four years. and i would would be clicked to add the u.n. the imf and the world bank and nato are also still essential. but all of our institutions and our relationships need to be modernized and complemented by new institutions, relationships and partnerships that are tailored for new challenges and models to the needs of a variable landscape. like how we elevated the chi 20 during the financial crisis, or created the climate and clean air coalition out of the state department to fight short lived pollutants like black carbon or worked with partners like turkey where the two of us stood up the first global counterterrorism forum. we are also working more than ever with invigorated regional organizations. consider the african union in somalia and the
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)